Im happy to see a little compromise here. Basically, you still retain the right to perma-ban, which of course is absolutely vital. 1 year, let alone 6 months is not long enough to stop someone who truly wants to spend their time sabotaging the site over and over.

But on the other hand, as long as the offences are small, and not overwhelmingly often, there can be a peace of mind, that no one who just breaks some rules all over the place, not so much maliciously, but by accident of time spent on the site, does not have to be banned just to follow protocol.

It of course still allows for reasonable banning as needed, and really gives the site more options, without reducing its power to keep things from getting out of hand.

I was wondering how this would end up. Pretty much a win-win, from any reasonable angle I think.

everything is great but this bit here... i believe you said there are 12 or fewer members with perma-bans from the forums... i don't see why it isn't possible to re-examine these cases and give some of them lighter sentences... t-om comes to mind as well as DM and a few others... great move by team CC for the most part. but a very poor decision to not re-examine some of these perma-bans...-0

Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"

everything is great but this bit here... i believe you said there are 12 or fewer members with perma-bans from the forums... i don't see why it isn't possible to re-examine these cases and give some of them lighter sentences... t-om comes to mind as well as DM and a few others... great move by team CC for the most part. but a very poor decision to not re-examine some of these perma-bans...-0

everything is great but this bit here... i believe you said there are 12 or fewer members with perma-bans from the forums... i don't see why it isn't possible to re-examine these cases and give some of them lighter sentences... t-om comes to mind as well as DM and a few others... great move by team CC for the most part. but a very poor decision to not re-examine some of these perma-bans...-0

everything is great but this bit here... i believe you said there are 12 or fewer members with perma-bans from the forums... i don't see why it isn't possible to re-examine these cases and give some of them lighter sentences... t-om comes to mind as well as DM and a few others... great move by team CC for the most part. but a very poor decision to not re-examine some of these perma-bans...-0

agreed

agreed

I criticized it soundly when that decision was made, so I'll just agree again.

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.

For the most part, many of you are referring to Dancing Mustard. It's a moot point anyways---he was busted for Multiple accounts (Dancing Mustard, mrwainthrope) weeks ago and both accounts are inactive.

AndyDufresne wrote:For the most part, many of you are referring to Dancing Mustard. It's a moot point anyways---he was busted for Multiple accounts (Dancing Mustard, mrwainthrope) weeks ago and both accounts are inactive.

--Andy

t-o-m was also mentioned... if his maps are good enough to have on the site, i don't understand why he can't have his perma-ban re-evaluated...-0

Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"

AndyDufresne wrote:For the most part, many of you are referring to Dancing Mustard. It's a moot point anyways---he was busted for Multiple accounts (Dancing Mustard, mrwainthrope) weeks ago and both accounts are inactive.

--Andy

Actually we're referring to all cases of people permabanned from the fora.

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.